Display:

The Chancellor granted a faculty for some minor reordering of the chancel of the church, to include moving the stone altar forward by 1 metre, to allow the celebrant to face westwards. The work also included the removal and disposal of the children's choir stalls.

The Chancellor considered two applications for faculties for proposed memorials, both of black polished stone with kerbs. One design incorporated a painted scene of a fisherman against a sunset, and the other featured a stained glass insert with a design of an angel. The Parochial Church Council supported the applications, but the Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended refusal in each case. The Chancellor refused to grant faculties. He determined that the proposed designs would be harmful both to the character of the churchyard, and to the contribution it makes to the setting of the Grade I listed church.

In 1972 a reredos had been installed in the church of St. James Grimsby (now Grimsby Minster) in memory of a parishioner's wife. The reredos had been made by the sculptor Frank Roper to a design by the architect George Pace. In the course of a reordering in 1995, which was carried out without faculty, the reredos was removed and stored in the church. Some other items of furnishing were also removed at the time and there present whereabouts were unknown. The petitioners in the present case wished to relocate the reredos to the church of All Saints Branston. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but directed that the archdeacon should prepare a list of the furnishings removed in 1995, with the names of the donors and locations of the items, if known, with a view to the Chancellor then making an order in respect of those items.

In 2008, the church architect sought formal advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee for internal redecoration of the church. A revised request for formal advice was submitted in 2011. The DAC issued a certificate (with provisos) in respect of "a single coat of lime wash to the interior of the church". Work started in 2013, although no faculty had been granted. By the beginning of 2017, the walls were discoloured with algae. The architect advised the PCC that any remedial work and repainting would be covered by the earlier faculty (which in fact did not exist). Repainting was carried out in 2017, but with white clay paint instead of lime wash. When it was discovered by the DAC Secretary that the work had been done without faculty, an application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but criticised the architect for allowing work to proceed without first making sure that a faculty had been granted, and he directed that the architect should pay two-thirds of the court fees.

The petitioner applied for a retrospective faculty to authorise the installation on a grave in the churchyard of what was described in the petition as a “grey plastic border and white gravel”, a memorial different from those permitted by the Diocese of Oxford Churchyard Regulations 2016. The Chancellor did not regard as determinative the petitioner's contention that there were already a number of other graves with kerbing in the churchyard. The Parochial Church Council objected to the grant of a faculty, on the grounds that kerbs made maintenance more difficult, and that they had already been trying to get other families to remove similar embellishments on graves. The Chancellor determined that the petitioner had not made a good case for a departure from the churchyards regulations and he refused to grant a faculty.

The Vicar and Churchwarden sought permission to remove and dispose of six pews from the rear area of the church in order to establish a flexible area for use for various activities, and also to erect an additional plaque directly under the present War Memorial wall plaque in order to add ten missing names. The Chancellor had already, on application, granted an interim faculty for the memorial plaque, so that it could be completed prior to the war centenary commemorations. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a case for the removal of the pews and granted a faculty.

Faculty refused for a two-storey church extension on the grounds of size and appearance.

The proposals were to remove the front seats in the sanctuary; to extend the Chancel step into a semi-circle and install a moveable altar rail and locate the Side Altar as a nave altar; to remove all the wooden flooring, cut down the pews whilst retaining the pew ends, and so to make the pews moveable; and to provide ramps to run west and east along the wall line from the southwest door. Principles in Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted for all items, apart from the removal of pews west of the cross aisle (except those next to the proposed ramp).

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise kerbs to be placed around a grave. The installation of kerbs was outside the diocesan churchyards regulations, but in this particular case the grave concerned was surrounded by graves with kerbs, such that kerbs 'appear to be the norm, rather than the exception'.

The petitioner wished to place in the churchyard a horizontal memorial tablet measuring 18in. by 18 in. to mark the interment of her late husband's cremated remains. Originally, her proposal requested the inclusion of two flower holders in the tablet, and an additional hole for a 'solar stick'. She also wished to have an inscription 15 lines long. The incumbent and Parochial Church Council ("PCC") objected to the proposal. It was customary to allow only one flower holder, no solar sticks, and an inscription giving dates and a brief biblical quote or words of comfort. Following correspondence, the petitioner amended her proposal to include only one flower holder, no solar stick and an inscription 10 lines long. To accommodate and support the PCC's policy, the Chancellor settled an inscription five lines long, which he would find acceptable. He allowed the petitioner 28 days in which to decide whether to accept the inscription, in which case a faculty would be granted. If the petitioner did not accept the inscription, the petition would be dismissed.